儿童听力困难和听觉加工障碍的多学科临床评估与干预:研究结果与临床实践的关系。

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
David R Moore, Li Lin, Ritu Bhalerao, Jody Caldwell-Kurtzman, Lisa L Hunter
{"title":"儿童听力困难和听觉加工障碍的多学科临床评估与干预:研究结果与临床实践的关系。","authors":"David R Moore, Li Lin, Ritu Bhalerao, Jody Caldwell-Kurtzman, Lisa L Hunter","doi":"10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Listening difficulty (LiD), often classified as auditory processing disorder (APD), has been studied in both research and clinic settings. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive relation between these two settings. In our SICLiD (Sensitive Indicators of Childhood Listening Difficulties) research study, children with normal audiometry, but caregiver-reported LiD, performed poorly on both listening and cognitive tests. Here, we examined results of clinical assessments and interventions for these children in relation to research performance.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Study setting was a tertiary pediatric hospital. Electronic medical records were reviewed for 64 children aged 6-13 years recruited into a SICLiD LiD group based on a caregiver report (Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skill [ECLiPS]). The review focused on clinical assessments and interventions provided by audiology, occupational therapy, psychology (developmental and behavioral pediatrics), and speech-language pathology services, prior to study participation. Descriptive statistics on clinical encounters, identified conditions, and interventions were compared with quantitative, standardized performance on research tests. <i>z</i> scores were compared for participants with and without each clinical condition using univariate and logistic prediction analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 24 clinical categories related to LiD, including APD, were identified. Common conditions were Attention (32%), Language (28%), Hearing (18%), Anxiety (16%), and Autism Spectrum Disorder (6%). Performance on research tests varied significantly between providers, conditions, and interventions. Quantitative research data combined with caregiver reports provided reliable predictions of all clinical conditions except APD. Significant correlations in individual tests were scarce but included the SCAN Composite score, which predicted clinical language and attention difficulties, but not APD diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The variety of disciplines, assessments, conditions, and interventions revealed here supports previous studies showing that LiD is a multifaceted problem of neurodevelopment. Comparisons between clinical- and research-based assessments suggest a path that prioritizes caregiver reports and selected psychometric tests for screening and diagnostic purposes.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28907780.</p>","PeriodicalId":51254,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multidisciplinary Clinical Assessment and Interventions for Childhood Listening Difficulty and Auditory Processing Disorder: Relation Between Research Findings and Clinical Practice.\",\"authors\":\"David R Moore, Li Lin, Ritu Bhalerao, Jody Caldwell-Kurtzman, Lisa L Hunter\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Listening difficulty (LiD), often classified as auditory processing disorder (APD), has been studied in both research and clinic settings. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive relation between these two settings. In our SICLiD (Sensitive Indicators of Childhood Listening Difficulties) research study, children with normal audiometry, but caregiver-reported LiD, performed poorly on both listening and cognitive tests. Here, we examined results of clinical assessments and interventions for these children in relation to research performance.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Study setting was a tertiary pediatric hospital. Electronic medical records were reviewed for 64 children aged 6-13 years recruited into a SICLiD LiD group based on a caregiver report (Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skill [ECLiPS]). The review focused on clinical assessments and interventions provided by audiology, occupational therapy, psychology (developmental and behavioral pediatrics), and speech-language pathology services, prior to study participation. Descriptive statistics on clinical encounters, identified conditions, and interventions were compared with quantitative, standardized performance on research tests. <i>z</i> scores were compared for participants with and without each clinical condition using univariate and logistic prediction analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 24 clinical categories related to LiD, including APD, were identified. Common conditions were Attention (32%), Language (28%), Hearing (18%), Anxiety (16%), and Autism Spectrum Disorder (6%). Performance on research tests varied significantly between providers, conditions, and interventions. Quantitative research data combined with caregiver reports provided reliable predictions of all clinical conditions except APD. Significant correlations in individual tests were scarce but included the SCAN Composite score, which predicted clinical language and attention difficulties, but not APD diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The variety of disciplines, assessments, conditions, and interventions revealed here supports previous studies showing that LiD is a multifaceted problem of neurodevelopment. Comparisons between clinical- and research-based assessments suggest a path that prioritizes caregiver reports and selected psychometric tests for screening and diagnostic purposes.</p><p><strong>Supplemental material: </strong>https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28907780.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00306\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-24-00306","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:听力困难(LiD)通常被归类为听觉处理障碍(APD),在研究和临床环境中都有研究。本研究的目的是检验这两种设置之间的预测关系。在我们的SICLiD(儿童听力困难的敏感指标)研究中,听力正常的儿童,但照顾者报告的听力障碍,在听力和认知测试中都表现不佳。在这里,我们检查了与研究表现有关的这些儿童的临床评估和干预结果。方法:研究背景为某三级儿科医院。根据护理人员报告(儿童听力和处理技能评估[ECLiPS]),对64名6-13岁儿童的电子医疗记录进行了回顾。本综述的重点是在参与研究之前由听力学、职业治疗、心理学(发育和行为儿科)和语言病理学服务提供的临床评估和干预措施。将临床接触、确定的条件和干预措施的描述性统计数据与研究测试的定量、标准化表现进行比较。使用单变量和逻辑预测分析比较有和没有每种临床状况的参与者的Z分数。结果:总体而言,确定了24种与LiD相关的临床分类,包括APD。常见的症状是注意力(32%)、语言(28%)、听力(18%)、焦虑(16%)和自闭症谱系障碍(6%)。在研究测试中的表现在提供者、条件和干预措施之间存在显著差异。定量研究数据与护理人员报告相结合,提供了除APD外所有临床状况的可靠预测。个别测试的显著相关性很少,但包括SCAN综合评分,预测临床语言和注意力困难,但不能诊断APD。结论:本文揭示的各种学科、评估、条件和干预措施支持了先前的研究,表明LiD是一个多方面的神经发育问题。临床评估和基于研究的评估之间的比较建议优先考虑护理人员报告和筛选心理测量测试以进行筛查和诊断。补充资料:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28907780。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multidisciplinary Clinical Assessment and Interventions for Childhood Listening Difficulty and Auditory Processing Disorder: Relation Between Research Findings and Clinical Practice.

Purpose: Listening difficulty (LiD), often classified as auditory processing disorder (APD), has been studied in both research and clinic settings. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive relation between these two settings. In our SICLiD (Sensitive Indicators of Childhood Listening Difficulties) research study, children with normal audiometry, but caregiver-reported LiD, performed poorly on both listening and cognitive tests. Here, we examined results of clinical assessments and interventions for these children in relation to research performance.

Method: Study setting was a tertiary pediatric hospital. Electronic medical records were reviewed for 64 children aged 6-13 years recruited into a SICLiD LiD group based on a caregiver report (Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skill [ECLiPS]). The review focused on clinical assessments and interventions provided by audiology, occupational therapy, psychology (developmental and behavioral pediatrics), and speech-language pathology services, prior to study participation. Descriptive statistics on clinical encounters, identified conditions, and interventions were compared with quantitative, standardized performance on research tests. z scores were compared for participants with and without each clinical condition using univariate and logistic prediction analyses.

Results: Overall, 24 clinical categories related to LiD, including APD, were identified. Common conditions were Attention (32%), Language (28%), Hearing (18%), Anxiety (16%), and Autism Spectrum Disorder (6%). Performance on research tests varied significantly between providers, conditions, and interventions. Quantitative research data combined with caregiver reports provided reliable predictions of all clinical conditions except APD. Significant correlations in individual tests were scarce but included the SCAN Composite score, which predicted clinical language and attention difficulties, but not APD diagnoses.

Conclusions: The variety of disciplines, assessments, conditions, and interventions revealed here supports previous studies showing that LiD is a multifaceted problem of neurodevelopment. Comparisons between clinical- and research-based assessments suggest a path that prioritizes caregiver reports and selected psychometric tests for screening and diagnostic purposes.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28907780.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
19.20%
发文量
538
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: JSLHR publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on the normal and disordered processes in speech, language, hearing, and related areas such as cognition, oral-motor function, and swallowing. The journal is an international outlet for both basic research on communication processes and clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, and management of communication disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. JSLHR seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of communication sciences and disorders, including speech production and perception; anatomy and physiology of speech and voice; genetics, biomechanics, and other basic sciences pertaining to human communication; mastication and swallowing; speech disorders; voice disorders; development of speech, language, or hearing in children; normal language processes; language disorders; disorders of hearing and balance; psychoacoustics; and anatomy and physiology of hearing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信